Aguirre et al v. State of California et al
Filing
26
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 10/23/17, ORDERING that the deadline for defendants to file a responsive pleading to the second amended complaint is CONTINUED by 30 days. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672
Attorney General of California
JON S. ALLIN, State Bar No. 155069
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
MAUREEN C. ONYEAGBAKO, State Bar No. 238419
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: (916) 210-7324
Fax: (916) 324-5205
E-mail: Maureen.Onyeagbako@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants Maydole, State
of California, California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, and
California Correctional Center
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
12
13
14
15
MARIA AGUIRRE, as personal
representative of the Estate of JONATHAN
VELARDE,
16
17
18
19
20
21
v.
2:16-cv-01297-MCE-GGH
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSIVE
Plaintiff, PLEADING TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT; ORDER THEREON
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; CALIFORNIA
CORRECTIONAL CENTER; DONALD
MAYDOLE; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
22
Defendants. Action Filed: June 9, 2016
23
24
Plaintiffs Maria Aguirre and the Estate of Jonathan Velarde, and Defendants State of
25
California, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Correctional
26
Center, and D. Maydole (collectively, the “Stipulating Parties”), through their undersigned
27
counsel, stipulate and request an order extending time to respond to the Second Amended
28
Complaint (SAC):
1
Stip. for EOT to File Responsive Pleading to Second Am. Compl.; Order Thereon (2:16-cv-01297-MCE-GGH)
1
2
3
4
5
1.
On September 29, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 13.)
2.
Plaintiffs filed the SAC on October 9, 2017 (ECF No. 23), making a response due
October 23, 2017.
3.
Defendants request an additional thirty days to file a responsive pleading to the SAC
6
due to the unavailability of defense counsel, Maureen Onyeagbako. Defense counsel has had a
7
number of pre-set and emergent assignments to address. These include work on a joinder to a
8
motion to dismiss and supplemental memorandum of points and authorities in Shabazz v. Beard,
9
No. 1:15-cv-00881-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.), filed October 16; initial disclosures and preparation of
10
a joint status report in Stacker v. CDCR, No. 2:16-cv-2913-GHW (E.D. Cal.), due October 20; a
11
reply brief in support of a motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status in Calloway v.
12
Hayward, No. 17-15244 (9th Cir.), due October 20; expert reports in Benyamini v. Blackburn,
13
No. 2:13-cv-0205 MCE AC (E.D. Cal.), due October 24; Defendants’ pretrial statement in
14
Benyamini, due November 1; a scheduling conference appearance in Joy v. Laszuk, No. 1:16-cv-
15
01652-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal.) on November 1; a reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss in
16
Stacker, due November 2; discovery responses in Stacker, due November 5; a settlement
17
conference statement in Jackson v. Sullivan, No. 1:07-cv-00178–DAD-GSA (E.D. Cal.), due
18
November 9; and a settlement conference appearance in Jackson on November 16. Ms.
19
Onyeagbako was also out of the office and unavailable for a prearranged and prepaid conference
20
with the State Bar on October 13, and will be out of the office November 2-3, for a prescheduled,
21
prepaid meeting with the American Bar Association.
22
Additionally, Ms. Onyeagbako must assist with preparations for a hearing in Coleman,
23
et al., v. Brown, et al., Case No. 2:90-cv-00522-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal.). Coleman is a long-
24
running class action concerning mental-health care for California state prison inmates, in the
25
remedial stage. The Coleman court ordered the parties to appear for a hearing on November 3,
26
2017. (ECF No. 5610 at 11.) The presentation of evidence at the November hearing will be
27
substantial and voluminous, including testimony from dozens of witnesses and over one hundred
28
2
Stip. for EOT to File Responsive Pleading to Second Am. Compl.; Order Thereon (2:16-cv-01297-MCE-GGH)
1
exhibits. The team of attorneys assigned to Coleman require additional assistance to prepare for
2
the November 3 hearing, and I am currently assigned to assist with the hearing preparations.
3
4.
Due to the aforementioned obligations and deadlines, defense counsel has not had an
4
opportunity to confer with her clients and evaluate what type of responsive pleading to file. Thus,
5
the Stipulating Parties agree that Defendants shall have an additional thirty days to file a
6
responsive pleading to the SAC.
7
5.
Based on the schedule of defense counsel, the Stipulating Parties agree that there is
8
good cause to continue the deadline for filing a responsive pleading by thirty days, and request
9
that the Court issue an order accordingly.
10
11
SO STIPULATED.
Dated: October 20, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
12
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
JON S. ALLIN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
13
14
/s/ Maureen C. Onyeagbako
___________________________________
MAUREEN C. ONYEAGBAKO
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants Maydole, State
of California, California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, and
California Correctional Center
15
16
17
18
19
Dated: October 20, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
20
LARRY RABINEAU
VIRGINIA NARIAN
Law Offices of Larry Rabineau
21
22
/s/ Virginia Narian
(as authorized on October 19, 2017)
___________________________________
VIRGINIA NARIAN
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
23
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 23, 2017
27
28
3
Stip. for EOT to File Responsive Pleading to Second Am. Compl.; Order Thereon (2:16-cv-01297-MCE-GGH)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?